COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UTOPIAN AND ANTI-UTOPIAN MOTIFS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK PROSE

Authors

  • Shohista Khalilova

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47390/SPR1342V5I12Y2025N55

Keywords:

utopia, anti-utopia, dystopia, ideal society, social critique, narrative motifs, comparative literature, moral–philosophical concepts

Abstract

This article explores the similarities and differences in the representation of utopian and anti-utopian motifs in English and Uzbek prose. By analyzing selected works from both literary traditions, the study examines how social ideals, political criticism, and moral-philosophical reflections shape authors’ visions of ideal and dystopian societies. The findings highlight culturally specific narrative strategies and universal tendencies in depicting human aspirations and societal constraints.

References

1. Baldick C. The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2015.

2. Booker M. K. Dystopian Literature: A Theory and Research Guide. Westport: Greenwood Press. 1994.

3. Claeys G. Dystopia: A Natural History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2017.

4. Huxley A. Brave New World. London: Chatto & Windus. 1932.

5. Kumar K. Utopia and Anti-Utopia in Modern Times. Oxford: Blackwell. 1987.

6. Levitas R. Utopia as Method: The Imaginary Reconstitution of Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2013.

7. More T. Utopia. London: Penguin Classics (modern edition). 1516.

8. Moylan T. Scraps of the Untainted Sky: Science Fiction, Utopia, Dystopia. Boulder: Westview Press. 2000.

9. Orwell G. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg. 1949.

10. Sargent L. T. The Three Faces of Utopianism Revisited. Utopian Studies, 5(1), 1994. – P. 1–37.

Downloads

Submitted

2025-12-15

Published

2025-12-15

How to Cite

Khalilova, S. (2025). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UTOPIAN AND ANTI-UTOPIAN MOTIFS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK PROSE. Ижтимоий-гуманитар фанларнинг долзарб муаммолари Актуальные проблемы социально-гуманитарных наук Actual Problems of Humanities and Social Sciences., 5(12), 312–315. https://doi.org/10.47390/SPR1342V5I12Y2025N55